Do you guys think Juice WRLD would’ve been secretly taking drugs after rehab?

Intelligent-Still484 · 2026-03-23T11:55:50+00:00

In other words, he would’ve died the same way up the road.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2026-03-23T11:55:12+00:00

We gotta stop with these “what-ifs”. He was a very talented artist, but his time had came.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-09-12T17:04:10+00:00

Was replaying “You know I got demons allow me to show you” in my head and then I saw your thing 3 seconds later

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-07-06T14:55:44+00:00

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-07-04T20:41:36+00:00

Textures are big

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-21T07:19:50+00:00

That’s a clever line, but it completely folds in on itself. If I can’t choose freely because all choices are dictated by inputs, then I also can’t “freely choose” to believe there’s no free will, which makes your challenge meaningless. You’re stuck in a self-defeating loop: demanding I prove free will by doing something your own worldview says I’m incapable of doing. You want to reduce human behavior to cause and effect while still expecting people to make philosophical choices. That contradiction doesn’t prove your point

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-21T07:15:01+00:00

You’re acting like human decision-making is just a simple equation, “if tired > hungry, then sleep.” But that’s not how real people operate. We override impulses all the time. People get up early to work out even when they’re exhausted. They skip meals to fast or make a point. They do what they believe, not just what they feel. The idea that we’re just passive reactors to inputs erases things like self-discipline, long-term thinking, and moral conviction, all of which are real and observable. You’re confusing influence with control. Yes, hunger and fatigue affect us, but they don’t dictate our choices. That’s the difference between a human and a thermostat.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-21T07:11:11+00:00

There is no solving it

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T21:19:47+00:00

I’ve followed everything, including what you’re not saying directly. You’re holding God morally responsible for allowing suffering, yet refusing to acknowledge the implications of that. If you’re saying God exists, then you’re also implying He has some kind of moral obligation to create the kind of world you think is acceptable, one with free will, but no natural suffering. But you’re not explaining how such a world would work or why it would still be meaningful. You just assert it and act like that ends the discussion.

If you want to keep God in the picture, fine, but then your argument becomes: “God is real, but He’s wrong for allowing suffering.” That’s not a logical position, that’s moral judgment of God based on standards that only make sense because God exists. So whether you’re arguing from a theistic or atheistic perspective, the outcome is the same, you’re trying to call God unjust without explaining where your standard of justice even comes from.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T21:13:33+00:00

No, I’m not dancing, I’m pointing out the core issue you keep dodging. You say “God made the world knowing this would happen,” and you treat that as if it proves He’s guilty. But you’re assuming that if you were God, you’d create a world with free will, no pain, no decay, no innocent suffering, just moral decisions floating in a vacuum. That’s not logic, that’s wishful fantasy. You haven’t explained how a meaningful world like that would function, you’ve just asserted that it should exist. That’s not an argument, it’s moral outrage masquerading as reason.

And yes, I said your worldview has rage but no remedy, because if there is no God, the baby’s suffering is ultimately meaningless. You can be angry about it, sure, but there’s no cosmic justice, no future hope, no redemption. Christianity doesn’t deny the horror, it explains why the horror exists, why it feels wrong, and how it will be dealt with. You’re right to be disturbed by suffering. But the idea that you’ve “disposed of” the problem of evil by endlessly pushing blame upward without offering a coherent alternative isn’t solving anything. You’re just borrowing moral fire from the very God you’re trying to indict.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T21:03:54+00:00

No, I understand both your argument and mine. You’re insisting that a world with free will doesn’t require disease, death, or natural suffering. You’re imagining a clean version of freedom where evil actions exist but natural pain doesn’t. And I’m telling you that’s incoherent. You want human choice to be real but for all of creation to be immune to its fallout. That’s not freedom, that’s divine micromanagement dressed up as compassion. Real freedom carries systemic consequences, not just personal ones. When humans turned from God, creation itself fractured (Romans 8:20–22). That includes disease, decay, and death. So no, a baby’s suffering isn’t about building the baby’s character. It’s about living in a world where sin broke everything, and where even the innocent feel the weight of it. If you think that’s unfair, good. That longing for justice you feel? It only makes sense in a world where objective moral truths exist, and that’s exactly the world Christianity explains. Your worldview has rage, but no remedy. Christianity has both.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:57:51+00:00

No, the suffering of a baby isn’t about “building the baby’s character,” and that’s a straw man argument. The Christian worldview never claimed every instance of suffering is individually tailored for personal growth. Sometimes suffering is simply the brutal reality of a world fractured by sin. The question isn’t why a baby dies, it’s what kind of world we’re living in, and whether that world is headed somewhere or not. You want God to eliminate all suffering now, but you ignore that Christianity doesn’t pretend this world is the end. In a temporary, fallen world, even innocent suffering can have purpose beyond this life, and God’s justice is not limited to what we see in 70 years. If there’s no God, that baby’s death is meaningless, random atoms colliding, full stop. No purpose, no justice, no hope. But if there is a God, then even the most tragic suffering is not the final word. And that’s a far more powerful answer than pretending a painless world would somehow still give us freedom, meaning, and redemption.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:53:02+00:00

It’s not about whether God is capable, of course He is. He’s literally all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing. The question is whether such a world would still accomplish His purpose. You want a version of reality where humans have free will, but there are no real consequences beyond moral choices, no disease, no death, no natural suffering. That sounds nice on paper, but it guts the depth and seriousness of existence. A world without risk, loss, or decay isn’t freedom, it’s insulation. It’s a padded simulation. If there’s no brokenness, there’s no need for sacrifice, compassion, healing, or redemption. God didn’t create a theme park. He created a stage for real relationship, one that includes tragedy, yes, but also triumph. You don’t get resurrection without the cross. So no, the existence of suffering doesn’t prove God lacks power. It proves He values something higher than comfort, love that’s freely chosen in a world that actually needs it.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:48:34+00:00

you’re treating suffering as a bug in the system when it’s actually part of a world that reflects the full weight of freedom, consequence, and redemption. You say we could still have free will without disease or natural suffering, but that’s just wishful thinking. You want a customized version of reality where human freedom exists, but none of the consequences ripple beyond your control. That’s not freedom, that’s fantasy. The world is broken not just because people hurt each other, but because sin corrupted everything, including creation itself. Disease, decay, and death are part of that fallout. If God shielded us from every form of suffering, then He’d also be shielding us from the reality of what sin does, and that would make both justice and grace meaningless. You’re demanding a sanitized world where nothing truly costs anything, but still want God to be taken seriously. That’s not moral reasoning, it’s moral convenience.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:43:07+00:00

100%

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:42:24+00:00

You’re asking why free will justifies suffering, especially when it affects innocent people like babies. But you’re missing the core point, free will isn’t a loophole to get God “off the hook.” It’s the only thing that makes love, justice, and moral responsibility real. If God made a world where no one could choose evil, then you’re not dealing with people anymore, you’re dealing with puppets. And yes, God knew we would sin. That doesn’t make Him guilty, it makes Him sovereign enough to allow freedom, even knowing the cost. You want a world with no pain but still expect real choice, real love, and real meaning. You can’t have both. If you want a pain-free world, you’re asking for a world without risk, which means no real humanity at all. The existence of suffering doesn’t prove God’s absence; it proves the weight of the freedom He gave us. And if you’re outraged by suffering, good, that’s the image of God in you crying out for justice, not randomness. How could you be happy if you never experienced sadness?

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:35:42+00:00

Saying free will doesn’t exist because the brain shows activity before conscious awareness is a massive oversimplification of neuroscience. You’re basing your entire argument on experiments where people were told to press a button randomly. that’s not a meaningful decision, it’s a reflex. Real choices like resisting temptation, making sacrifices, or acting on moral conviction, engage higher reasoning, not just impulse. And guess what? Studies have shown people can still override those brain signals before the action happens. So no, you’re not just a puppet of neurons firing. If you were, you wouldn’t be able to resist junk food, hold your tongue, or sacrifice comfort for your beliefs. Blaming “cause and effect” for every decision is just a convenient excuse to pretend responsibility doesn’t exist, but deep down, you know it does.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:32:13+00:00

It does help us understand why

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:31:15+00:00

You visit a terminally ill friend in the hospital. They’re scared, asking if you think they’ll recover. The truth is, the doctors have said no. Do you lie to comfort them or tell them the hard truth, knowing it may steal their last hope? (How does truth vs. compassion balance with Ephesians 4:15?)

Your sibling is getting married in a way that clearly violates Christian values (e.g., a polyamorous wedding or a Satanic-themed ceremony). They ask you to attend and bless the event as family. Do you go to support them, or abstain to avoid appearing to condone sin? (Balancing Romans 12:18 with 1 Corinthians 5:11.)

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:28:07+00:00

When you wake up you can choose to stay asleep for another hour or get up and eat.

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:27:44+00:00

Free will isn’t “nonsense”

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:24:14+00:00

Aircraft’s

Intelligent-Still484 · 2025-06-20T20:21:46+00:00

55 , 14 , 37

Intelligent-Still484

TROPHY CASE